DOCSLIB.ORG

Portrait Miniatures from the by the Early 1700S, Miniaturists Began to 1500S Are Watercolor on Vellum, Paint on Ivory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Portrait Miniatures from the by the Early 1700S, Miniaturists Began to 1500S Are Watercolor on Vellum, Paint on Ivory Portrait European Art 1775–1825 Miniatures Materials & Techniques Watercolor Ivory The earliest portrait miniatures from the By the early 1700s, miniaturists began to 1500s are watercolor on vellum, paint on ivory. Initially, ivory was cut in a translucent, fine animal skin adhered sheets about one millimeter thick from to the plain side of a playing card with elephant tusks. However, by the 1760s starch paste. The playing card provided a the sheets were cut so thin they were white surface and added support. transparent. The luminosity of the thin To ensure an even, smooth bond between sheets of ivory in combination with the the vellum and card, artists rubbed translucency of watercolor proved to be a tool—usually an animal’s tooth in a the perfect blend of surface and technique wooden handle—over the entire surface. to render skin tones and the transparent fabrics in fashion. To increase ivory’s Initially, miniaturists prepared their own brightness, artists placed silver foil behind watercolors by grinding pigments made the ivory. from minerals, plants, dried insect bodies, and manufactured pigments, many of Ivory has a greasy, nonabsorbent surface, which contained lead. Pigments were thus watercolors tended to run. Therefore, powdered and mixed with gum arabic many early paintings on ivory reveal a (a binding agent) and water. By the early cautious, mechanical technique. Miniaturists 1700s, commercially prepared artists’ developed new methods to facilitate materials were readily available. painting on ivory, including degreasing the surface with vinegar and garlic, or Watercolor has a delicate drawing out the grease through heat and transparency, ideal for rendering then blotting the ivory with paper. Artists skin tones. However, watercolor is also sanded ivory with powdered pumice extremely sensitive to direct light or sandpaper to roughen the surface, and and prone to fading. For this reason, sometimes added more gum arabic to their the light levels on this side of the watercolor, increasing its stickiness and its gallery must remain low. ability to adhere to the ivory. In the 1680s, enamel painting—pigments Paper and wax fused into enamel on metal—formed one Wax modeling had been popular since the of the first technological innovations 1300s. Goldsmiths initially used this method in portrait miniature painting. Enamel of modeling for designing cast medals. painting is labor intensive because Artists quickly realized, however, that the each color requires a separate firing warm and delicate texture of colored wax at different temperatures. Although closely imitated flesh and blood. it’s a slow and sometimes problematic Watercolor on paper was also popular. process—cracks often occurred during Quicker and easier to produce, these firing—the benefits were dazzling and the works were less expensive than ivory colors permanent. or enamel on metal. The disadvantage, however, is that paper discolors. Miniatures in watercolor on paper also functioned as preparatory sketches for ivories. European Art 1775–1825 Tools of the Trade Such small-scale painting demanded sophisticated technique and precise tools. Details such as hair, clothing, or jewelry might require brushwork or shading, hatching with parallel brushstrokes, or scratching into the surface with scrapers. Stippling with tiny dots of color, often called the water-drop technique, was popular on both vellum and ivory. Methods of working on a smooth support, such as vellum or ivory, were carefully chosen as repainting in watercolor would soften and smear already painted surfaces. These methods required delicate tools, such as small brushes made of squirrel hair and set in goose quills mounted in wooden handles. Burnishing tool made of an ermine tooth, The Victoria and Albert Museum, London Settings & Functions Artists presented miniatures to their The size varies greatly: small miniatures clients in frames. Those intended as were often private and worn close to the jewelry were set in lockets or in small body as jewelry, whereas larger miniatures frames affixed to bracelets. Miniatures were for more public settings. Large-scale intended for private viewing may have rectangular miniatures, called cabinet appeared in simple metal frames and miniatures, developed along with their placed in carved ivory or ebony boxes or smaller oval counterparts from the 1500s. leather cases. By the 1800s, round metal The early cabinet miniatures often present frames fixed on wooden boards facilitated a sitter in full length and show interiors in hanging on walls. Glass enclosed most elaborate detail, similar to oil paintings. ivory miniatures to protect them from By the 1800s, however, portrait miniatures moisture and scratching. Miniatures rarely emulated small-scale oil painting in terms retained their original frame, as individual of size and bold coloring. They also collectors reframed them according to demonstrated a degree of high finish and personal taste. sharp focus, qualities of their impending rival, the photograph. Human hair was often a component of the framing on miniatures. From a single lock of hair to intricately plaited arrangements, hairworks were especially popular in Europe and the United States from the late 1700s to the early 1900s. This art form usually commemorated loss; however, it also could celebrate an engagement or friendship. ‘/Volumes/DESIGN/DESIGN/SHARED/JOINT/GALLERY/NEW Galleries/207/Gallery Guides/ Rotation 2/MinRotation2.indd Rotation 2: European Art 1775–1825 Elizabethan to Post-Restoration Miniatures: 1570s–1700 During the reign of Elizabeth I Between the death of Hilliard and the rise (1558–1603), the miniature achieved of Samuel Cooper [7–8], John Hoskins was its highest status, due in part to its the finest miniature painter in England. greatest exponent, Nicholas Hilliard. Hoskins pioneered a number of miniature techniques, among them the use of His early miniatures followed landscape or sky backgrounds. This allusion the queen’s order that no hint of to the outdoors [5] places the sitter in shadow should cloud the royal an actual setting and lends an individual countenance. Thus, Hilliard depicted sensitivity to the object. her and other patrons in a flat, two- Hoskins’s nephew, Samuel Cooper, trained dimensional style [2–3]. with his uncle and assimilated Hoskins’s Hilliard generally worked in a small ability to capture individual character. format [1–2], signaling the miniature’s Cooper’s sitters retain the reality of private function. On rare occasions he living people without being idealistic painted on a larger scale [3]. These [7–8]. Many consider Cooper’s unfinished large portrait miniatures, called “cabinet works, including his portrait of the English pictures,” were housed in public display philosopher Thomas Hobbes [8], to cabinets similar to this one. represent his greatest achievement in capturing an individual likeness. Intricate details dominate Hilliard’s miniatures and reflect the Elizabethan Equally distinct in both subject matter love of elaborate costume and jewelry and style is Richard Gibson’s miniature of [1–3]. Some include gold and silver Lady Capell [6]. Gibson’s somber colors mottoes that relate to the sitter’s identity, contribute to the sorrowful mood; Lady such as that surrounding [2], which Capell was in mourning for her husband. identifies the year Hilliard painted it, 1576, Unlike the smooth brushwork of most and the age of the sitter, 39. miniaturists, Gibson used a distinctive dragged impasto (thickly laid paint) First trained as a goldsmith, Hilliard technique he learned from oil painters. introduced innovative techniques for painting pearls by applying a raised bead In contrast, Peter Cross combined short of white lead paint topped by a drop brushstrokes and dots to achieve the soft of burnished silver. Despite its original focus in his Portrait of a Woman [9]. brilliance, Hilliard’s painted pearls now appear black, as the silver has tarnished with age. Hilliard’s pupils, including Isaac Oliver and by extension Oliver’s son, Peter, used these methods, accounting for the black jewels in the crown and earrings of the young woman [4]. European Art 1775–1825 2 6 1 7 3 5 8 4 9 1 Portrait of a Woman, early 1590s 6 Portrait of Elizabeth Morrison, Lady Watercolor on card Capell, 1650s Nicholas Hilliard Watercolor on vellum (British, about 1547–1619) Richard Gibson The Edward B. Greene Collection 1940.1210 (British, about 1615–1690) The Edward B. Greene Collection 1941.555 2 Portrait of Baron Howard of Effingham, 1576 7 Portrait of a Woman, 1646 Watercolor on vellum Watercolor on vellum Nicholas Hilliard Samuel Cooper (British, about 1547–1619) (British, 1608–1672) Gift of Mrs. A. Dean Perry in memory of The Edward B. Greene Collection 1940.1204 Mr. and Mrs. Edward Belden Greene 1960.39 8 Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, about 1660 3 Portrait of Anthony Mildmay, Watercolor on vellum about 1590–93 Samuel Cooper Watercolor on vellum (British, 1608–1672) Nicholas Hilliard The Edward B. Greene Collection 1949.548 (British, about 1547–1619) about 1700 Purchase from the J. H. Wade Fund 1926.554 9 Portrait of a Woman in Blue, Watercolor on vellum 4 Portrait of a Woman, about 1616 Peter Cross Watercolor on card (British, about 1645–1724) Peter Oliver The Edward B. Greene Collection 1941.554 (British, about 1594–1647) The Edward B. Greene Collection 1941.559 5 Portrait of a Man, about 1630 Watercolor on card John Hoskins (British, about 1590–1665) The Edward B. Greene Collection 1941.558 Rotation 3: European Art 1775–1825 New Generation of Miniaturists in England: 1770–1800 Between 1700 and 1800 Britain’s saturated jewel-tone colors, his work is population increased by nearly four quieter in tone than Cosway’s due to his million people in tandem with a rise cautious stipple technique. This creates an exquisitely smooth surface with little in its national wealth. As a result, trace of individual brush strokes, except for many middle-class consumers Smart’s fondness for anatomical details anxious to flaunt their status fueled such as crows’ feet, a feature in his own the market for portraiture.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Karl Wolf-Into the Woods-Fauvism Landscape Leaaon Plan
    Legends Legacies & connectionsFROM THE PERMANENT COLLECTION KarlWolf Into The Woods: Fauvist Landscapes THE KELLY Kelly Fitzpatrick Memorial Gallery P. O. Box 641, Wetumpka, AL 36092 | 408 S. Main St., Wetumpka, AL 36092 | Web: thekelly.org | Email: [email protected] Karl Wolf, 1904-1984 The Dixie Art Colony, 1940, Watercolor on Paper, 20” x 14.” Gift of Elizabeth "Bebe" Wolfe, 2015 Acquisition Karl Wolfe was born in Brookhaven, Mississippi in the year 1904. He was the oldest son of Wiley Wilson Wolfe and Elizabeth Heuck. He was still a boy when his family moved to Columbia Mississippi. Karl graduated from the Columbia High School and went to Soule Business College in New Orleans where he studied bookkeeping. He later was accepted to the Chicago Art Institute, graduating in 1928. In his last year of study he won the William R French Traveling Scholarship, and spent the next year traveling and studying in Europe. Karl met his future wife, Mildred Nungester, at the Dixie Art Colony, near Montgomery, Alabama in the 1930’s. Karl and Mildred were friends and colleagues for many years before they married in 1944. In 1942 Karl was drafted into the Army Air Corps and spent the War years at Lowry Field in Colorado, assigned to work as a photographer. After the war Karl and Mildred returned to Jackson, Mississippi, where Karl had begun to establish a clientele before the war. They homesteaded on land Karl had bought before the war, built and shared a studio there and raised a family. Karl became an accomplished and widely respected portrait painter.
    [Show full text]
  • Kingston Lacy Illustrated List of Pictures K Introduction the Restoration
    Kingston Lacy Illustrated list of pictures Introduction ingston Lacy has the distinction of being the however, is a set of portraits by Lely, painted at K gentry collection with the earliest recorded still the apogee of his ability, that is without surviving surviving nucleus – something that few collections rival anywhere outside the Royal Collection. Chiefly of any kind in the United Kingdom can boast. When of members of his own family, but also including Ralph – later Sir Ralph – Bankes (?1631–1677) first relations (No.16; Charles Brune of Athelhampton jotted down in his commonplace book, between (1630/1–?1703)), friends (No.2, Edmund Stafford May 1656 and the end of 1658, a note of ‘Pictures in of Buckinghamshire), and beauties of equivocal my Chamber att Grayes Inne’, consisting of a mere reputation (No.4, Elizabeth Trentham, Viscountess 15 of them, he can have had little idea that they Cullen (1640–1713)), they induced Sir Joshua would swell to the roughly 200 paintings that are Reynolds to declare, when he visited Kingston Hall at Kingston Lacy today. in 1762, that: ‘I never had fully appreciated Sir Peter That they have done so is due, above all, to two Lely till I had seen these portraits’. later collectors, Henry Bankes II, MP (1757–1834), Although Sir Ralph evidently collected other – and his son William John Bankes, MP (1786–1855), but largely minor pictures – as did his successors, and to the piety of successive members of the it was not until Henry Bankes II (1757–1834), who Bankes family in preserving these collections made the Grand Tour in 1778–80, and paid a further virtually intact, and ultimately leaving them, in the visit to Rome in 1782, that the family produced astonishingly munificent bequest by (Henry John) another true collector.
    [Show full text]
  • Essay Exhibit and Book Review
    Essay Exhibit and Book Review: The PealeFamily: Creation of a Legacy 1770-1870, Lillian B. Miller, Editor (New York: Abbeyville Press, 1996, $65.00). Traveling Exhibit: Philadelphia Museum of Art (November 1996-Janu- ary 1997); M. H. DeYoung Museum, San Francisco (January-April 1997); Corcoran Gallery, Washington, D. C. (April-July, 1997). Phoebe Lloyd DepartmentofArt History, Texas Tech University In her forward to The Peale Family: Creationofa Legacy, 1770-1870, Ann Van Devanter Townsend raises the question "how would the academic com- munity refer to this important body of scholarship for years to come?" Townsend is President of The Trust for Museum Exhibitions, a nonprofit organization that sponsored the book and Peale family exhibition at three host museums. As Trust President and initiator of the exhibitions, Townsend may well pon- der. Her leading players, Lillian B. Miller, Sidney Hart, and David C. Ward, are not trained art historians. Their crossover from cultural and social history to art history reveals how different the disciplines are and how inapplicable the expertise of the social historian can be. Part of what is lacking in this enterprise of exhibition-cum-text is accountability: to the primacy of the im- age; to the established methodologies of art history; to the kind of scholarly apparatus that substantiates an attribution. Even where the two disciplines should coalesce, there is a lack of accountability: to the bare bones of historical fact, to the Peale family's primary source material stored in the vault at the American Philosophical Society; to the intellectual property of others and in- cluding the work done by those who garnered the footnote information for the now four-volume The Selected Papers of Charles Wil/on Peale, of which Miller is editor.
    [Show full text]
  • British Art Studies September 2020 Elizabethan and Jacobean
    British Art Studies September 2020 Elizabethan and Jacobean Miniature Paintings in Context Edited by Catharine MacLeod and Alexander Marr British Art Studies Issue 17, published 30 September 2020 Elizabethan and Jacobean Miniature Paintings in Context Edited by Catharine MacLeod and Alexander Marr Cover image: Left portrait: Isaac Oliver, Ludovick Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, later Duke of Richmond, ca. 1605, watercolour on vellum, laid onto table-book leaf, 5.7 x 4.4 cm. Collection of National Portrait Gallery, London (NPG 3063); Right portrait: Isaac Oliver, Ludovick Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, later Duke of Richmond, ca. 1603, watercolour on vellum, laid on card, 4.9 x 4 cm. Collection of Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (FM 3869). Digital image courtesy of National Portrait Gallery, London (All rights reserved); Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (All rights reserved). PDF generated on 21 July 2021 Note: British Art Studies is a digital publication and intended to be experienced online and referenced digitally. PDFs are provided for ease of reading offline. Please do not reference the PDF in academic citations: we recommend the use of DOIs (digital object identifiers) provided within the online article. Theseunique alphanumeric strings identify content and provide a persistent link to a location on the internet. A DOI is guaranteed never to change, so you can use it to link permanently to electronic documents with confidence. Published by: Paul Mellon Centre 16 Bedford Square London, WC1B 3JA https://www.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk In partnership with: Yale Center for British Art 1080 Chapel Street New Haven, Connecticut https://britishart.yale.edu ISSN: 2058-5462 DOI: 10.17658/issn.2058-5462 URL: https://www.britishartstudies.ac.uk Editorial team: https://www.britishartstudies.ac.uk/about/editorial-team Advisory board: https://www.britishartstudies.ac.uk/about/advisory-board Produced in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • André Derain Stoppenbach & Delestre
    ANDR É DERAIN ANDRÉ DERAIN STOPPENBACH & DELESTRE 17 Ryder Street St James’s London SW1Y 6PY www.artfrancais.com t. 020 7930 9304 email. [email protected] ANDRÉ DERAIN 1880 – 1954 FROM FAUVISM TO CLASSICISM January 24 – February 21, 2020 WHEN THE FAUVES... SOME MEMORIES BY ANDRÉ DERAIN At the end of July 1895, carrying a drawing prize and the first prize for natural science, I left Chaptal College with no regrets, leaving behind the reputation of a bad student, lazy and disorderly. Having been a brilliant pupil of the Fathers of the Holy Cross, I had never got used to lay education. The teachers, the caretakers, the students all left me with memories which remained more bitter than the worst moments of my military service. The son of Villiers de l’Isle-Adam was in my class. His mother, a very modest and retiring lady in black, waited for him at the end of the day. I had another friend in that sinister place, Linaret. We were the favourites of M. Milhaud, the drawing master, who considered each of us as good as the other. We used to mark our classmates’s drawings and stayed behind a few minutes in the drawing class to put away the casts and the easels. This brought us together in a stronger friendship than students normally enjoy at that sort of school. I left Chaptal and went into an establishment which, by hasty and rarely effective methods, prepared students for the great technical colleges. It was an odd class there, a lot of colonials and architects.
    [Show full text]
  • Artists` Picture Rooms in Eighteenth-Century Bath
    ARTISTS' PICTURE ROOMS IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BATH Susan Legouix Sloman In May 1775 David Garrick described to Hannah More the sense of well­ being he experienced in Bath: 'I do this, & do that, & do Nothing, & I go here and go there and go nowhere-Such is ye life of Bath & such the Effects of this place upon me-I forget my Cares, & my large family in London, & Every thing ... '. 1 The visitor to Bath in the second half of the eighteenth century had very few decisions to make once he was safely installed in his lodgings. A well-established pattern of bathing, drinking spa water, worship, concert and theatre-going and balls meant that in the early and later parts of each day he was likely to be fully occupied. However he was free to decide how to spend the daylight hours between around lOam when the company generally left the Pump Room and 3pm when most people retired to their lodgings to dine. Contemporary diaries and journals suggest that favourite daytime pursuits included walking on the parades, carriage excursions, visiting libraries (which were usually also bookshops), milliners, toy shops, jewellers and artists' showrooms and of course, sitting for a portrait. At least 160 artists spent some time working in Bath in the eighteenth century,2 a statistic which indicates that sitting for a portrait was indeed one of the most popular activities. Although he did not specifically have Bath in mind, Thomas Bardwell noted in 1756, 'It is well known, that no Nation in the World delights so much in Face-painting, or gives so generous Encouragement to it as our own'.3 In 1760 the Bath writer Daniel Webb noted 'the extraordinary passion which the English have for portraits'.4 Andre Rouquet in his survey of The Present State of the Arts in England of 1755 described how 'Every portrait painter in England has a room to shew his pictures, separate from that in which he works.
    [Show full text]
  • British Art Studies September 2020 Elizabethan and Jacobean Miniature Paintings in Context Edited by Catharine Macleod and Alexa
    British Art Studies September 2020 Elizabethan and Jacobean Miniature Paintings in Context Edited by Catharine MacLeod and Alexander Marr British Art Studies Issue 17, published 30 September 2020 Elizabethan and Jacobean Miniature Paintings in Context Edited by Catharine MacLeod and Alexander Marr Cover image: Left portrait: Isaac Oliver, Ludovick Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, later Duke of Richmond, ca. 1605, watercolour on vellum, laid onto table-book leaf, 5.7 x 4.4 cm. Collection of National Portrait Gallery, London (NPG 3063); Right portrait: Isaac Oliver, Ludovick Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, later Duke of Richmond, ca. 1603, watercolour on vellum, laid on card, 4.9 x 4 cm. Collection of Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (FM 3869). Digital image courtesy of National Portrait Gallery, London (All rights reserved); Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (All rights reserved). PDF generated on 21 July 2021 Note: British Art Studies is a digital publication and intended to be experienced online and referenced digitally. PDFs are provided for ease of reading offline. Please do not reference the PDF in academic citations: we recommend the use of DOIs (digital object identifiers) provided within the online article. Theseunique alphanumeric strings identify content and provide a persistent link to a location on the internet. A DOI is guaranteed never to change, so you can use it to link permanently to electronic documents with confidence. Published by: Paul Mellon Centre 16 Bedford Square London, WC1B 3JA https://www.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk In partnership with: Yale Center for British Art 1080 Chapel Street New Haven, Connecticut https://britishart.yale.edu ISSN: 2058-5462 DOI: 10.17658/issn.2058-5462 URL: https://www.britishartstudies.ac.uk Editorial team: https://www.britishartstudies.ac.uk/about/editorial-team Advisory board: https://www.britishartstudies.ac.uk/about/advisory-board Produced in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Text (PDF)
    International Journal of Art and Art History December 2019, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 39-52 ISSN: 2374-2321 (Print), 2374-233X (Online) Copyright © The Author(s).All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/ijaah.v7n2p4 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/ijaah.v7n2p4 The Black Image in the English Gaze: Depictions of Blackness in English Art Tony Frazier1 Abstract: This paper analyzes English art to view the black experience in the eighteenth-century. English painters placed black people into their portraits in various stations of life throughout the period. The fashioning and placement of black people in English art renders for the reader some interpretation how English artists used the black body in their paintings. These images of blacks emerged from the imaginations of white artists; thusly these portraits and prints are not from the black perspective of English society, but a reflection of white attitudes. Therefore, a certain caution exists in any interpretation of the paintings. The inference about the implications of the paintings develops from the gaze of white artists. This paper suggests that an interpretation through English art does reveal something about the status of black people and shed light on satirical explanations of race and sex in eighteenth-century England. Keywords: William Hogarth, Black British Art, George Moorland, Richard Cosway, British Painters, Frances Villiers In the minds of many white Londoners of the eighteenth century, blacks were very present in society. White Londoners in fact constructed their own images of blacks, which in many ways related to social reality of the day.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicholas Hilliard (1547–1619) Henry Percy, 9Th Earl of Northumberland, C
    Nicholas Hilliard (1547–1619), Portrait of Henry Percy, Ninth Earl of Northumberland, c. 1594-5 Fig. 1. Nicholas Hilliard (1547–1619) Portrait of Henry Percy, Ninth Earl of Northumberland, c. 1594-1595, miniature on parchment, 25.7 x 17.3 cm (slightly small than A4), Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. 1. Introduction, Patronage, Dates, Description, Related Works 2. Melancholia, Panofsky, Dürer, Four Humours 3. Impresa, Archimedes, Galileo, „Tanti‟ 4. Secret Knowledge, School of Night, Square 5. Conclusion This article can be downloaded from http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/Northumberland.pdf 1 of 8 pages 1. Introduction Patronage This is arguably the most cryptic Tudor cabinet miniature. It is likely that is was commissioned by Henry Percy the Ninth Earl of Northumberland (1564-1632), a well known Elizabethan intellectual and cultural figure. He was known as the ‗Wizard Earl‘ because of his scientific and alchemical experiments and his large library. In 1594 Henry Percy married Dorothy Devereux sister of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex. His southern estates were Petworth and Syon House, the latter he acquired through his marriage to Dorothy Devereux. He was a non-Catholic but argued for Catholic toleration and tried to negotiate with James VI of Scotland to reduce Catholic persecution when he became king of England. This did not happen and Henry‘s second cousin and agent Thomas Percy became one of the five conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. As a result Henry Percy suspected of complicity and spent the next 17 years in the Tower of London and was financially ruined by a fine of £30,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Masters' Thesis Abstract and Table of Contents
    Céline Cachaud Masters’ Thesis (2017) École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris) Pr. Sabine Frommel (dir.) Nicholas Hilliard’s trip to France (1576-1579) and its consequences on his work A holistic approach This thesis is the result of more than two years of research. It is a two-parts research with a study of 167 pages and a comprehensive catalogue of Nicholas Hilliard’s work, the first in French, of 273 numbers. The study is currently only available in French. The study Nicholas Hilliard’s trip to France has regularly been boiled down to a no-consequence phase of his career by most of the specialists and scholars. However, sources and preserved works of art tell us another story : this period was indeed prolific and meaningful for the rest of his life. Although very few works of art are kept, circa twenty compared with the more than 200 authentic and attributed pieces, they are proofs of the plurality of his artistic production and the signs of the apex of his career thanks to the protection of the Valois court and most notably, thanks to the patronage of the French king’s brother, the duke of Alençon. Main issue Through the renewed analysis of the available and discovered archival and iconographical sources, this thesis had for main issue to discuss the consequences of Hilliard’s stay in France and the importance of it. To a lesser extent, it also questions Hilliard’s part in the renewal of portrait miniatures production in France in the late sixteenth century. ABSTRACT AND CONTENTS !1 Method : Our intentional holistic approach aimed at analyzing Hilliard’s trip to Paris in a global way, questioning on both Hilliard’s artistic career and human path into French society.
    [Show full text]
  • Johann Zoffany, Classical Art, Italy and Russian Patronage: Shedding New Light on Models, Men and Paintings
    664 Anna Maria Ambrosini Massari УДК 7.034(410.1)8 ББК 85.03 DOI:10.18688/aa155-7-72 Anna Maria Ambrosini Massari Johann Zoffany, Classical Art, Italy and Russian Patronage: Shedding New Light on Models, Men and Paintings Antiquity was the great theme in European art and culture in the second half of the 18th century. Johann Zoffany’s (1733–1810) famous painting of theTribuna of the Uffizi (Royal Collections, UK, Ill. 112) made in Florence between 1772 and 1777, does not portray that room as it was, but sums up a number of classical models of paramount importance in the artistic and social education of any well-bred eighteenth-century European. The astonishing concentration of masterpieces in the Tribuna was a sum of the ideas of beauty selected from antiquity and the Renaissance, even if, considering the first, Rome was undoubtedly the place to go to discover and experience the antique in eighteenth-century Europe. Zoffany himself had discovered classical heritage while living in Rome, from 1750 to 1757 and being a pupil of Anton Raphael Mengs who was, together with Johann Joachim Winckelmann, the main testimonial of antiquity’s values and models. It was in Rome that Zoffany approached the composite community of Grand Tourists who probably showed him how much England was becoming the center of modern Europe and contributed to his decision to move there [8, p. 18] 1. Zoffany’s Classical education is very well shown by a painting he executed in 1753 — in Rome, or perhaps the reason for a short return to Germany — I’m pointing to the Martyrdom of Saint Bartholomew (Regensburg, Museen der Stadt) [14, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Anecdotes of Painting in England : with Some Account of the Principal
    C ' 1 2. J? Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/paintingineng02walp ^-©HINTESS <0>F AEHJKTID 'oat/ /y ' L o :j : ANECDOTES OF PAINTING IN ENGLAND; WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL ARTISTS; AND INCIDENTAL NOTES ON OTHER ARTS; COLLECTED BY THE LATE MR. GEORGE VERTUE; DIGESTED AND PUBLISHED FROM HIS ORIGINAL MSS. BY THE HONOURABLE HORACE WALPOLE; WITH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS BY THE REV. JAMES DALLAWAY. LONDON PRINTED AT THE SHAKSPEARE PRESS, BY W. NICOL, FOR JOHN MAJOR, FLEET-STREET. MDCCCXXVI. LIST OF PLATES TO VOL. II. The Countess of Arundel, from the Original Painting at Worksop Manor, facing the title page. Paul Vansomer, . to face page 5 Cornelius Jansen, . .9 Daniel Mytens, . .15 Peter Oliver, . 25 The Earl of Arundel, . .144 Sir Peter Paul Rubens, . 161 Abraham Diepenbeck, . 1S7 Sir Anthony Vandyck, . 188 Cornelius Polenburg, . 238 John Torrentius, . .241 George Jameson, his Wife and Son, . 243 William Dobson, . 251 Gerard Honthorst, . 258 Nicholas Laniere, . 270 John Petitot, . 301 Inigo Jones, .... 330 ENGRAVINGS ON WOOD. Arms of Rubens, Vandyck & Jones to follow the title. Henry Gyles and John Rowell, . 39 Nicholas Stone, Senior and Junior, . 55 Henry Stone, .... 65 View of Wollaton, Nottinghamshire, . 91 Abraham Vanderdort, . 101 Sir B. Gerbier, . .114 George Geldorp, . 233 Henry Steenwyck, . 240 John Van Belcamp, . 265 Horatio Gentileschi, . 267 Francis Wouters, . 273 ENGRAVINGS ON WOOD continued. Adrian Hanneman, . 279 Sir Toby Matthews, . , .286 Francis Cleyn, . 291 Edward Pierce, Father and Son, . 314 Hubert Le Soeur, . 316 View of Whitehall, . .361 General Lambert, R. Walker and E. Mascall, 368 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
    [Show full text]